• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme'

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme' | TheHill

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said depositions in the House's impeachment inquiry have already established an “extortion scheme” by the White House.

“It’s important that the president has due process, and evidence is not a conclusion,” Swalwell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “We have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponents."
=================================================
Extortion is much easier for most people to understand than quid pro quo.
 
JacksinPA said:
Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme' | TheHill

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said depositions in the House's impeachment inquiry have already established an “extortion scheme” by the White House.

“It’s important that the president has due process, and evidence is not a conclusion,” Swalwell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “We have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponents."
=================================================
Extortion is much easier for most people to understand than quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Actually, they're two different things. The difference is: there was no qpq, so they have to come up with a different term and, extortion sounds worse...lol.

This term transition is an admission that there was no QPQ. :lamo
 
JacksinPA said:
Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme' | TheHill

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said depositions in the House's impeachment inquiry have already established an “extortion scheme” by the White House.

“It’s important that the president has due process, and evidence is not a conclusion,” Swalwell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “We have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponents."
=================================================
Extortion is much easier for most people to understand than quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Bribery would be a more appropriate term than extortion.
 
apdst said:
Actually, they're two different things. The difference is: there was no qpq, so they have to come up with a different term and, extortion sounds worse...lol.

This term transition is an admission that there was no QPQ. :lamo
Click to expand...

Quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
So, clearly extortion is the wrong term, but Quid pro quo definitely fits.
 
Carleen said:
Quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
So, clearly extortion is the wrong term, but Quid pro quo definitely fits.
Click to expand...

Like I said: two different things.
 
apdst said:
Like I said: two different things.
Click to expand...

No, what you said is no quid pro quo. That is what it is and so far corroborated by 5 People who have testified under oath.
 
Carleen said:
No, what you said is no quid pro quo. That is what it is and so far corroborated by 5 People who have testified under oath.
Click to expand...

There is no qpq. That's why they're calling it extortion. But, only because extortion sounds scarier than quid pro quo.
 
apdst said:
There is no qpq. That's why they're calling it extortion. But, only because extortion sounds scarier than quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Ha! Ha! You make me laugh.
 
Carleen said:
Ha! Ha! You make me laugh.
Click to expand...

You must be laughing at Swolewell. He's the one saying there's no qpq and there is extortion. Is he wrong?
 
apdst said:
There is no qpq. That's why they're calling it extortion. But, only because extortion sounds scarier than quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Was there coordination on the announcement of an "investigation" of Burisma and the 2016 election?
 
Carleen said:
Quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
So, clearly extortion is the wrong term, but Quid pro quo definitely fits.
Click to expand...

I believe both to be true...
 
apdst said:
You must be laughing at Swolewell. He's the one saying there's no qpq and there is extortion. Is he wrong?
Click to expand...

No, I’m laughing at you. You obviously didn’t read my post. I said extortion was not the proper term.
 
Carleen said:
No, I’m laughing at you. You obviously didn’t read my post. I said extortion was not the proper term.
Click to expand...

I know you did. Perhaps it's you that is confused?
 
apdst said:
I know you did. Perhaps it's you that is confused?
Click to expand...

Oh, please, stop the double talk. You asked I answered. You don’t like my answer, fine. Simply disagree and tell me why you think Quid Pro Quo is wrong when testimony says different.
 
Carleen said:
Oh, please, stop the double talk. You asked I answered. You don’t like my answer, fine. Simply disagree and tell me why you think Quid Pro Quo is wrong when testimony says different.
Click to expand...

Swolewell said it's wrong. Take it up with him.
 
JacksinPA said:
Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme' | TheHill

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said depositions in the House's impeachment inquiry have already established an “extortion scheme” by the White House.

“It’s important that the president has due process, and evidence is not a conclusion,” Swalwell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “We have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponents."
=================================================
Extortion is much easier for most people to understand than quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Swalwell is a partisan hack.
 
apdst said:
There is no qpq. That's why they're calling it extortion.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Bribery would be a more appropriate term than extortion.
Click to expand...

No.

Bribery implies that Trump was personally offering his money, or his services for this investigation.

What he did was hold back the US taxpayer money that Congress appropriated for a personal favor.

That’s extortion- because Ukraine should have gotten those funds as a matter of course, but was told they wouldn’t unless Zelensky announced the investigation on CNN.
 
Threegoofs said:
No.

Bribery implies that Trump was personally offering his money, or his services for this investigation.

What he did was hold back the US taxpayer money that Congress appropriated for a personal favor.

That’s extortion- because Ukraine should have gotten those funds as a matter of course, but was told they wouldn’t unless Zelensky announced the investigation on CNN.
Click to expand...

Gonna have a REALLY hard time proving extortion.....you should read up on the definition of it....
 
Carleen said:
You are a useless debater. Have a nice evening.
Click to expand...

He is just here to making trolling posts, no one ever takes him seriously.
 
do you guys ever wonder how many people go to church on Sundays then come here and defend criminal activity each day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom